Koretsky Talk Falconer Lewis Session - CACHEcache.org/files/win17-koretsky-no-lecturing.pdf ·...
Transcript of Koretsky Talk Falconer Lewis Session - CACHEcache.org/files/win17-koretsky-no-lecturing.pdf ·...
1/28/2017
1
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
No More Lecturing! What John Falconer Has Done for Student
Learning
Milo Koretsky
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Concept Warehouse
• Create a community of Learning focused on concept-based instruction
• Lower the activation barrier to promoteimplementation of concept-based instruction and active learning
Cyber-enabled infrastructure for conceptual questions
1/28/2017
2
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
The AIChE Concept Warehouse
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
At Launch,2012 ChE Summer School
1/28/2017
3
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Concept Warehouse: Propagation of ConcepTests
Gilbuena, Smith, and Koretsky, Educational Technology Research and Development(2016)
JF
JF
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Example Question: What students see when you assign online
Multiple Choice Answer Selections
Question text
Plus Figure
Written Reflection(optional)
Confidence(optional)
1/28/2017
4
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental EngineeringJohn L. FalconerConcepTests
Instructional
Design
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Lecture / Reading
Homework Due
ConcepTestsin Class
(Peer Instruction)
Instructional Sequence
1/28/2017
5
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Instructor assigns a
conceptual question
Students answer
individually
Students discuss in
groups
Instructor reassigns the
question
Students re-answer
individually
Instructor shows class
response and discusses
Peer Instruction
Students teach/learn from fellow students-- encourage cooperation‒ more engaged class‒ students hear alternate explanations
Students determine how well they understand
Instructor gets feedback from everyone
Students motivated to be prepared; attendance higher
Students articulate reasoning
John L. Falconer ConcepTests
Falconer’s Advantages – Peer Instruction
1/28/2017
6
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Lecture / Reading
Homework Due
ConcepTestsin Class
(Peer Instruction)
Instructional Sequence
Higher LevelBloom
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental EngineeringJohn L. FalconerConcepTests
Imbedded
Assessment
1/28/2017
7
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Lecture / Reading
Homework Due
ConcepTestsin Class
(Peer Instruction)
Instructional Sequence (Assessment)
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Homework – traditional (Year 1)
1/28/2017
8
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Homework – electronic (Year 2)
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Homework Due
ConcepTestsin Class
(Peer Instruction)
Instructional Sequence
Year 1 Year 2
Collect DataHere
Lecture / Reading
1/28/2017
9
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
10% 23% 35% 48% 60% 73% 85% 98% 100%
Number of Students
Percentage Correct
Conventional HW
Electronic HW
Responses to ConcepTests in Matirialand Energy Balances
32 Identical ConcepTests
Prof. Adam Higgins
Year 1
Year 2
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental EngineeringJohn L. FalconerConcepTests
Learning
Research
1/28/2017
10
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Example Question: What students see when you assign online
Multiple Choice Answer Selections
Question text
Plus Figure
Written Reflection(optional)
Confidence(optional)
• Split, Crossover Design– Same lecture– Two large recitation sections
• One section writes explanation = Treatment (Tr)• One section does not = Comparison (Com)• Alternate sections every 2 – 3 weeks
– Compare answers to 39 ConcepTests across two cohorts
– Chi‐squared test, = 0.05– For Com group, qualitatively code reasoning (1= poor; 4 = well reasoned)
Influence of Writing Justifications (Tr) vs. not (Com)
1/28/2017
11
Effectn questions
Expected
Tr > Com ~1
Tr = Com ~37
Tr < Com ~1
Influence of Writing Justifications (Tr) vs. not (Com)
Koretsky, Brooks, and Higgins, International Journal of Science Education (2016)
39 Questions= 0.05
If the treatment had no effect, we would expect:
Effect n questionsTreatment Comparison Treatment Comparison
<%> <%> <n students> <n students>
Tr > Com 15 65% 50% 66 68
Tr = Com 19 58% 57% 66 67
Tr < Com 5 56% 69% 69 69
Influence of Writing Justifications (Tr) vs. not (Com)
39 Questions= 0.05
Koretsky, Brooks, and Higgins, International Journal of Science Education (2016)
1/28/2017
12
EffectEasy Moderate Difficult
Tr > Com
(% correct) (85%) (65%) (23%)
Ncorrect 72 39 18
Ncode=4 53 21 7
Tr < Com
(% correct)
NA
(59%) (22%)
Ncorrect 47 16
Ncode=4 11 1
75% ̅ 50% ̅ 50%̅ 75%
How Many Students Can Justify Their Answer?
Effect n questionsTreatment Comparison Treatment Comparison
<%> <%> <n students> <n students>
Tr > Com 15 65% 50% 66 68
Tr = Com 19 58% 57% 66 67
Tr < Com 5 56% 69% 69 69
Influence of Writing Justifications (Tr) vs. not (Com)
Koretsky, Brooks, and Higgins, Journal of Engineering Education, forthcoming
39 Questions= 0.05
Expanding Piston(Falconer)
Balloon Rising(Someone else)
Isomorphic Questions
1/28/2017
13
Expanding Piston(Falconer)
Balloon Rising
Looking at the Explanations
Koretsky et al., Journal of Engineering Education (2016)
Balloon RisingExpanding Piston (Falconer)
1/28/2017
14
Expanding Piston
(Modified)
Koretsky et al., Journal of Engineering Education(2016)
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Collaborators
Student ResearchersDebra Gilbuena, PostDocBill Brooks, PostDocChristina Smith, PhDKritsa Chinandon, PhDAlec Bowen, HBSRachel White, BSDaniel Reid, BSMatt Boggess, BSCole Morgan, BSMatt Kirsch, BS
FacultyJohn Falconer, University of ColoradoAdam Higgins, Oregon State UniversitySteve Krause, Arizona State University Carl Lira, Michigan State UniversityMarina Miletic, Miletic Educational ConsultingRon Miller, Colorado School of MinesMike Prince, Bucknell UniversityBrian Self, Cal Poly SLODavid Silverstein, University of KentuckyMargot Vigeant, Bucknell University
• Beta Testers
• The developing community who has contributed to and used the Concept Warehouse
1/28/2017
15
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
Acknowledgements
• National Science Foundation • DUE - 1023099, 1022957, 1022875,
1022785• DUE - 1245482, • DUE - 1225456 (Krause Lead) • DUE - 1225221 (Vigeant Lead).
• LL Stewart Scholar Program
• Technology Resource Program
*Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering
http://cw.edudiv.org